Presidential Candidate Accomplishments

[AquaMan]

Paying more or less taxes is not a moral issue. Murder or theft is a moral issue. If you say tax rates should be higher, and then not paying higher taxes in the meantime does not make you a hypocrite of diminish your argument (at least to me) in the lease. I understand there are legitimate reasons for just about everything. That just doesn't mean they are the best solutions.

On the flip side, if I think taxes should be lower, does that mean I get to pay less taxes because it would be the "ethical thing to do". See where this argument falls apart? It's not exactly the same but it feels similar to people who pull out the race card when they want the argument shut down. That's just my opinion mind you. Nothing personal against you. I have heard plenty of people use that argument.

Wasn't talking to you.

Nonetheless, funny how you ignored the word "ethical" yet dwelled on the word "moral". The tax argument is specious.
Its as if you zeroed in on something you could make a point on and ignored what you can't. You're pretty consistent with that.

Now put the word "ethical" or if you dare, the word "integrity" in your post and see if it still makes sense. Nothing personal. I see people do this all the time to avoid what they can't defend.

[Red Arrow]

It sounds so easy when you say it like that.

It really is that easy.  Of course no one here can do that.  Everyone will spin until impact.

[nathanm]

It really is that easy.  Of course no one here can do that.  Everyone will spin until impact.

Surely your flight instructor taught you?

[erfalf]

Wasn't talking to you.

Nonetheless, funny how you ignored the word "ethical" yet dwelled on the word "moral". The tax argument is specious.
Its as if you zeroed in on something you could make a point on and ignored what you can't. You're pretty consistent with that.

Now put the word "ethical" or if you dare, the word "integrity" in your post and see if it still makes sense. Nothing personal. I see people do this all the time to avoid what they can't defend.

But it is the same. Acting ethically would be following the law. Acting morally would be following the law. It really is that simple. I wasn't ignoring one or the other. They are one in the same.

Not integrity may be a whole nother ball of wax. But even then, I would argue that acting within the bounds of the law is acting with integrity. Particularly in this day in age regarding politicians.

[nathanm]

But it is the same. Acting ethically would be following the law. Acting morally would be following the law. It really is that simple. I wasn't ignoring one or the other. They are one in the same.

What is legal is often not ethical or moral. Thankfully, we are not stupid enough to merge the law and ethics. There are plenty of things that people shouldn't do that are perfectly legal, as it should be in a society that claims to have freedom of religion.

[AquaMan]

He seems quite confused. Lets use a concrete example and some definitions.

Morality: the quality of being morally right; rightness; virtue. Of or related to conduct or character from the point of view of right and wrong.

Integrity: Uprightness of character; probity; honesty.

Now tell me Erfalf, if this story concerns a man of integrity and morality.

Mullin, a republican conservative running for Congress, complains loud and angrily about Obama stimulus money. He says it not only doesn't work but is counterproductive, immoral and a taxpayer waste. He says he will stop such giveaways when he is elected. He also rails against Obama's remarks about no one making it alone in this world. He assures the press he grew his company without government help. In fact, they hindered his business. These are boilerplate conservative Republican stands. He said everything right except he forgot to blame the liberal press for misquoting him.

A Native American tribe was awarded stimulus money to build housing for their low income tribal members. The tribe included some money with the stimulus and went looking for a contractor to build them.

Mullin applied for those contracts and received the lucrative contracts. The program was a success in that it stimulated the tribe to provide funds, build housing and stimulated MULLIN PLUMBING's bank account! He did this at the same time he was railing against Obama's horrid stimulus program.

When the story was divulged in the local newspaper, Mullin says he has no remorse because it was a contract from a third party, not the government. But he was aware of where the money came from and apparently was able to overlook his strong moral commitment against stimulus money.

He lacked integrity for not being true to his own political and personal beliefs. And, he seems to think that dirty money is not dirty if its been laundered through another nation's coffers so he lacks the quality of morality. Lastly, his company prospered because of government help.

He is as confused as you are.

[erfalf]

If you can show me that Mullen knew that the funds used for the project were stimulus funds then maybe it is an integrity issue. However, I would guess most contractors wouldn't have a clue what the sourcing of the funds for every job they do are. It's not like Mullen's firm applied for the subsidy directly. But as it appears, it is a case of neither. It is a case of an opponent in search of a story.

[Hoss]

If you can show me that Mullen knew that the funds used for the project were stimulus funds then maybe it is an integrity issue. However, I would guess most contractors wouldn't have a clue what the sourcing of the funds for every job they do are. It's not like Mullen's firm applied for the subsidy directly. But as it appears, it is a case of neither. It is a case of an opponent in search of a story.

So ignorance makes him innocent.  Gotcha.

[Red Arrow]

Surely your flight instructor taught you?

OK, everyone but me will spin to impact.  Spins in an aircraft can be fun, especially stopping on a specific heading after a predetermined number of turns.  (ie. end up going north after 2-1/2 turns.)  Stopping on a heading is where this forum falls short.

Oh, I almost forgot:  Spin training is not required for a Private Certificate.  I believe it is required to get a CFI.  The FAA determined (incorrectly in my view) that stall training is enough many years ago.

[nathanm]

The FAA determined (incorrectly in my view) that stall training is enough many years ago.

I didn't think most models of small private planes can reasonably be expected to spin. I seem to recall there are a few that it's not terribly unusual with, though? I remember it being covered in one of the Sporty's Air Facts tapes I once watched and that's about everything I know about the subject, so I'll defer to your actual expertise if you tell me differently.

[AquaMan]

If you can show me that Mullen knew that the funds used for the project were stimulus funds then maybe it is an integrity issue. However, I would guess most contractors wouldn't have a clue what the sourcing of the funds for every job they do are. It's not like Mullen's firm applied for the subsidy directly. But as it appears, it is a case of neither. It is a case of an opponent in search of a story.

Who do you think the opponent is? The press? That figures. Hypocrisy is old news in politics. It didn't even make the front page and they soft pedaled his earlier remarks. They aren't naive, they have seen this stuff before.

Keep your last post in an envelope and come back 5-10 years for a good laugh. Yeah, stupid contractors who are about to lock up two $300,000 contracts don't know where the money came from. That's good.  Look up the story in TW or online.

Mullin knew where the money came from.  He didn't think it relevant because it had been effectively laundered. Not his words, mine.  He had established "plausible deniability" so that naive guys like you would swallow his hypocrisy. Truth is, he had to know because the money came with lots of necessary documentation as with any government contract, Native American or US government. In this case, both. He has not denied knowing it was stimulus money, he has denied it mattered because a third party contracted with him.

And you ignored the other issues, but I'm beginning to see that as a part of your strategy.

[heironymouspasparagus]

If you can show me that Mullen knew that the funds used for the project were stimulus funds then maybe it is an integrity issue. However, I would guess most contractors wouldn't have a clue what the sourcing of the funds for every job they do are. It's not like Mullen's firm applied for the subsidy directly. But as it appears, it is a case of neither. It is a case of an opponent in search of a story.

He was specifically waiting for tribal funding to come through to start the job - from the stimulus.

Seriously....geez.

[heironymouspasparagus]

First, the promise was to have bills available for 72 hours before passage (campaign promise broken) . Did not happen. Used a rule reserved for budgetary items (reconciliation), which in my opinion was a pretty big stretch. The "nuclear option" (which Obama denounced) was used to break the filibuster. And it was widely hated (I think polls usually had about 25% supporting it). Yes, I think it would be safe to say it was "rammed through" by pretty much any measure.

And you keep using that hypocrite line that is quit lame. You know as well as anyone, that no one is going to do things against their best interest within the bounds of the law. That is why it is so hard to compete with Democrats who keep promising all kinds of free stuff (that really isn't free).

Do you even KNOW how to read??  The bill was available for several weeks ahead of signature.  If you weren't keeping up, that is NOT a reflection one way or the other on Obama.


So very sad you feel the truth is quit(e) lame.  As for the truly lame, plaintive bleat about "best interest within the bounds of the law",...well, that's why they just buy the Congress.  To make amoral, illegal, no-integrity actions legal. 

And again - free stuff from Democrats??  Whew!  Talk about out there... I definitely gotta find some of what you smoke...after if becomes legal - because then it will be moral and ethical and literally dripping with integrity.  Refer to previous posts on the Federal Debt History site.

[Red Arrow]

I didn't think most models of small private planes can reasonably be expected to spin. I seem to recall there are a few that it's not terribly unusual with, though? I remember it being covered in one of the Sporty's Air Facts tapes I once watched and that's about everything I know about the subject, so I'll defer to your actual expertise if you tell me differently.

Most pilots in the last 40 (or more) years have learned to fly in a Cessna 150, 152, or 172.  All three are capable of spins for training.  I just checked the Owners' Manuals I have for them.  The 172 (thru at least the 1982 172P) must be operated in the Utility category (no one in the rear seats and lower gross weight).  I believe the Piper Tomahawk was placarded against spins.  I don't have a Piper Cherokee Owner's manual so I don't know about them.  Some planes are placarded against spins because they were not tested during the Certification process or did not meet the requirements of recovery from the spin.  Most small planes will spin though.  Some will not.  I believe the Ercoupe will not spin because it lacks elevator authority to induce the required stall.

[Red Arrow]

And again - free stuff from Democrats?? 

You haven't seen the clips of people wanting free Obama money?  It may or may not be true but it's what significant numbers of his supporters believe.